Manafort loses bid to stay in 'VIP' jail, could face evidence from 1980s

Paul Manafort lost his bid to stay in the jail he's been in and will be forced to move, two weeks prior to his trial in Virginia. He and his lawyers had complained about the two hours that separated them, although he did have full access to them. He also enjoyed private accommodations, phone and email.

After all that, Manafort asked the judge to keep him in the jail he has been in, saying that he had safety concerns about moving to Alexandria. The judge dismissed those concerns and approved the original plea to move closer to his home and his attorneys.

In a filing to Ellis on Wednesday, Mueller’s prosecutors laid out their case for no delay. Contrary to Manafort’s assertions, the prosecutors argued that his jail, while located two hours from Washington, had provided him with ample access to his lawyers and had not hindered his preparation for trial.

Far from being restrictive, prosecutors said Manafort had been given a personal telephone in his cell, which he used for more than 300 calls with attorneys and others over the past three weeks, and found a workaround to the jail’s ban on email.

Prosecutors also cited taped phone calls from prison in which Manafort remarked that he was being treated like a “VIP” and had access to “all my files like I would at home.”

Manafort was also afforded his own bathroom, shower and workspace, according to the court filing by Mueller’s office.

On Tuesday, Judge T.S. Ellis sought to address Manafort’s complaint about the remoteness of the jail by ordering him moved from the current facility in Warsaw, Virginia, to a jail in Alexandria closer to his attorneys and his home.

Manafort responded by asking that he be allowed to stay in Warsaw, citing concerns about safety and “the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement” two weeks before trial.

On Wednesday, Ellis denied Manafort’s request and ordered him moved to the Alexandria Detention Center, rejecting the notion that he would not be safe there. The Alexandria jail had experience with high-profile defendants “including foreign and domestic terrorists, spies and traitors,” Ellis wrote.

Boy, did judge Ellis quickly turn about. This was one of the two judges that originally questioned Mueller's authority on prosecuting Manafort, and now he is openly comparing him to "domestic terrorists, spies and traitors."

Now, Manafort is no angel, he seems to be very shady, but how does a judge so quickly change their public stance, just weeks apart, to go from being sympathetic to Manafort's cause to pretty much sentencing him in the public eye with that statement?

Reuters

originally posted by: Kharron
Now, Manafort is no angel, he seems to be very shady, but how does a judge so quickly change their public stance, just weeks apart, to go from being sympathetic to Manafort's cause to pretty much sentencing him in the public eye with that statement?

A Judge may or may no change their opinion because of evidence.

a reply to: Kharron

Ellis last ruling on Mueller still took the SC to task. Its not over yet.

MUeller filed a motion to bar the defense from disclosing that the feds already investigated Manafort for what he is being charged with now and declined to prosecute. The SC also stipulated they wont raise the russia collusion angle since if they did they would be required to turn over all evidence to Manafort.

Interestingly Manaforts investigation arose because of the Russia investigation so im not sure how the SC can defend their position if they cant raise the basis for their investigation.

If Mueller loses the motion regarding Manafoirt already being investigated and cleared on the charges he is screwed. Witness number 1 for the defense will be DAG Rosenstein, who was the doj attorney who originally cleared manafort of any wrongdoing in the charges the SC brought.

The other issue the SC wants barred is the ability for the defense to argue selective prosecution.

The fact they are trying to block those 2 angles tells me the SC is in trouble.

so wait the charges are now from the 1980s? or they are using previous "mistakes" he made way back to prove guilt or imply guilt for more recent ones? think i read the article correctly but not sure i understood it all

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

political hit job essentially

a reply to: Kharron

The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.

Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.

It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

This is modern insanity gripping the nation. Opposing someone's point of view is the most egregious crime on earth. Murder, meh.

"one less ugly mouth on the welfare"

- Tupac

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.

Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.

It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.

Witness tampering while under house arrest while awaiting trial is a good way to get sent to jail no matter the charges you face.

a reply to: Pyle

www.akleg.gov...

and yet, in Alaska, under SB91 it is considered a probationary incident and you'll be released immediately after processing.
That's what I'm talking about here. We the People take it in the shorts, but when the establishment feels like they're the victim, Katy bar the door because somebody is going to be made an example of.

This is how the SC screwed themselves with Manafort.

Manafort filed an in limine motion which requ8ires the prosecution to lay out the scope of their prosecution. That motion is what caused the SC to say they wont be raising anything related to Trump or Trump Russia collusion. The problem with that action by the SC is now how do they explain the basis for their investigation into Manafort since the sole reason used to justify the investigation was Trump Russia collusion.

By the SC excluding anything related to Russia collusion they are able to protect their investigation into Trump Russia collusion by not being required to disclose their evidence in that realm to the defense.

All they have are the charges that the DOJ had already cleared Manafort of decades ago. Defense witness #1 is gong to be Rod Rosenstein.

I fail to understand the mindset of the SC with the only exception being they didnt expect people to fight back to force the SC to prove their case in court.

Judge Ellis has not ruled on the misconduct motion filed by Manafort with Weissman and the AP yet however if its confirmed Weissman disclosed secrete grand jury info to the AP then I doubt the SC will be able to continue their efforts into Manafort. I see the charged being dismissed with prejudice.

The backwards part -

Nevertheless, the prosecutor does not appear to be alleging that anyone else in the campaign, including then-candidate Donald Trump, was aware that Manafort may have been exploiting his high-ranking position in the campaign to facilitate a fraud.

So once again we are back to actions that stem from 2005 and unrelated in its entirety to Trump - Russia collusion. Actions Manafort was already cleared of.

Source

“motions in limine,” which ask the court to preclude evidence on topics that are claimed to be irrelevant to the charges and that could cause unfair prejudice or confusion.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kharron

Ellis last ruling on Mueller still took the SC to task. Its not over yet.

MUeller filed a motion to bar the defense from disclosing that the feds already investigated Manafort for what he is being charged with now and declined to prosecute. The SC also stipulated they wont raise the russia collusion angle since if they did they would be required to turn over all evidence to Manafort.

What do you mean? You know legal stuff better than most of us here do.

I was under the impression all evidence had to be turned over anyway; what do you think is being withheld and how is that legal? What's the purpose of it? If he is found not guilty, it's not like they can use it again later.

Thanks.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.

Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.

It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.

He was free burdman, but he broke the terms of his release and therefore got sent in. He did have a choice, he just abused it.

Hmmm, this could have been why the judges suddenly changed their opinions and stances. I'll look into the dates of when all that happened and see if there is a relation.

Ok, it sort of makes sense but it could be nothing.

Judge Ellis challenged Mueller's authority on May 4th.
Mueller accused Manafort of witness tampering on June 4th.
Manafort went to jail on the 15th.
June 26th, judge Ellis upheld Mueller's authority.
Today, calls Manafort a "traitor", pretty much.

It would seem witness tampering changed things a bit for Manafort, but it could be a number of other things, just trying to make sense of it.

Also on Wednesday, Mueller’s office filed a motion in the Washington case notifying the court of its intent to present evidence at trial about a Justice Department inspection into Manafort’s lobbying activities in the 1980’s.

That's way past the statue of limitations.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.

Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.

It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.

He was free burdman, but he broke the terms of his release and therefore got sent in. He did have a choice, he just abused it.

Hmmm, this could have been why the judges suddenly changed their opinions and stances. I'll look into the dates of when all that happened and see if there is a relation.

You do realize that Manafort didn't actually talk to the supposed witness? We're not sure which one he didn't talk to because Mueller will not release that information.

So as far as abusing the choice, Mueller said he did, Manafort didn't know what he was talking about and then was thrown in jail. A jail, btw, where he is allowed 1 hour in 23 to be out of his cell and phone calls are limited to 10 minutes.

So not exactly the same picture of incarceration you are attempting to portray.

So Mueller has not given anyone proof of witness tampering. He just said it happened and is not willing to prove it.

Just another day in the Democrat's dream America.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.

Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.

It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.

He was free burdman, but he broke the terms of his release and therefore got sent in. He did have a choice, he just abused it.

Hmmm, this could have been why the judges suddenly changed their opinions and stances. I'll look into the dates of when all that happened and see if there is a relation.

You do realize that Manafort didn't actually talk to the supposed witness? We're not sure which one he didn't talk to because Mueller will not release that information.

So as far as abusing the choice, Mueller said he did, Manafort didn't know what he was talking about and then was thrown in jail. A jail, btw, where he is allowed 1 hour in 23 to be out of his cell and phone calls are limited to 10 minutes.

So not exactly the same picture of incarceration you are attempting to portray.

So Mueller has not given anyone proof of witness tampering. He just said it happened and is not willing to prove it.

Just another day in the Democrat's dream America.

It seems Manafort liked where he was staying. Those stories we heard do not seem to be accurate, any more. He had private accommodations, with a private bath room, a shower and a workspace. He also got to use a phone in his cell -- he made over 300 phone calls over the last three weeks. He asked the judge not to be moved and to stay there for two more weeks, despite being able to be closer to home by two hours.

The interesting part of that statement from the OP is that he 'found a workaround to the jail’s ban on email'. How did he find a workaround? Tampering? I wanna know more.

a reply to: Kharron

I'm not saying there weren't likely rational reasons. I'm just saying it's a bit frustrating to see the legal system punish something like this, where the primary "victims" are the establishment while whistling through the graveyard when the victims are Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

I'm not saying there weren't likely rational reasons. I'm just saying it's a bit frustrating to see the legal system punish something like this, where the primary "victims" are the establishment while whistling through the graveyard when the victims are Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

I agree with you fully there. But what can we expect from a system that will imprison a plant seller longer than a killer.

originally posted by: Kharron
What do you mean? You know legal stuff better than most of us here do.

Ellis's ruling denying Manaforts motion to dismiss sided with the special counsel however the judges, again, raised concerns over the actions of the SC in that ruling. Specifically their ethics in going after Manafort in order to get to Trump and the manner in which they are going about to do it. He also raised questions about the SC having unchecked power.

originally posted by: Kharron
I was under the impression all evidence had to be turned over anyway; what do you think is being withheld and how is that legal? What's the purpose of it? If he is found not guilty, it's not like they can use it again later.

Thanks.

Discovery motions require the prosecution to turn over all evidence to the defense that is relevant to the charges. They are required to turn over all exculpatory evidence (evidence that specifically goes in the favor of the defense). Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence by the prosecution is a Brady violation. A Brady violation can result in the prosecutions case being thrown out and charges dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cant refile charges against the person (dismissal with prejudice is the worst case scenario).

By limiting charges and by stating they wont bring up certain material in court against Manafort allows them to withhold the evidence that the defense would be otherwise entitled to.

In this case though I dont see how they can defend their prosecution if they can't raise the reasons why the investigation started in the first place. If the SC motion to limit Manaforts lawyers from raising certain aspects is denied then the SC is going to be shoveling # against a wall.

Calling the Deputy Attorney General as a witness for the defense and asking him under oath if Manafort was already investigated and cleared of these crimes, which he was by Rosenstein himself, kind of puts a wrench in the gears of the prosecution. You have the DAG telling a jury - we knew about these actions, we investigated these actions and we declined to prosecute on these actions begs the question of why he is, again, being charged for crimes he was already cleared of.

Then you ask why Manafort is being prosecuted when the Podestas, who are very much linked to this case and the charges, are not even though they committed the exact same crimes, you raise the issue of selective prosecution.

Those 2 actions can destroy the prosecutions case by raising the appearance of bias against Manafort that is based solely on a political bias in an effort to damage the President.

I think Manafort is guilty. I just vehemently disagree with the manner the DOJ/FBI/SC have gone about bringing the prosecution. Shredding the constitution to justify an investigation and obtain a guilty verdict is a non starter with me.

Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: Kharron


The next "jail" will be a hole with rats in it. If Manafort doesn't concoct a story to get Trump impeached quickly, there won't be much left of him.